IE8 is the best! Wait, what?! Who wrote this??

  • UPSGuy
  • Lurker ಠ_ಠ
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2733
  • Loc: Nashville, TN

Post 3+ Months Ago

IE8 has better security, privacy, ease of use, and much, much more. Wait, what?! M$ posted up a (biased) comparison of Internet Explorer vs. Firefox vs. Chrome. This one should get some nice replies :)

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/get-the-facts/browser-comparison.aspx
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

  • Don2007
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • Don2007
  • Posts: 4924
  • Loc: NY

Post 3+ Months Ago

Seriously, why would I even click on that site? As you already noted, it has to be biased. All those benefits of IE could be true if they ever get it to work.
  • Bigwebmaster
  • Site Admin
  • Site Admin
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 9090
  • Loc: Seattle, WA & Phoenix, AZ

Post 3+ Months Ago

It is kind of amusing to read. The part about compatibility is what I find most amusing:

Quote:
Internet Explorer 8 is more compatible with more sites on the Internet than any other browser.


I still find broken websites in IE8 that force me to use their compatiblity link when these sites already work fine in FF. Why can't all websites just work normally?
  • UPSGuy
  • Lurker ಠ_ಠ
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2733
  • Loc: Nashville, TN

Post 3+ Months Ago

I thought that one to be particularly brave on their part, too. You would think the whole standards issue would be enough to make them think twice about saying that. Even for compatibility mode, I've had to alter sites (mostly css - Joomla templates and the like) to get the layout right. It's like adjusting for 2 new browsers.
  • dyfrin
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 503
  • Loc: WI

Post 3+ Months Ago

lol this is as funny as reading the "statistics" from UW Madison about how many innocents were on death row in Illinois a while back that made the governor revoke the death penalty.

Love the people who have an idea and find facts to back it up.
  • spork
  • Brewmaster
  • Silver Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6252
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

I love how Safari doesn't even get a mention. Granted, I'm not a fan of Safari but it has been around quite a bit longer than Chrome.
  • Don2007
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • Don2007
  • Posts: 4924
  • Loc: NY

Post 3+ Months Ago

Apparently, MS is resorting to propaganda methods used by governments of the world. No matter what I see, there is always someone to tell me that I don't see it. I see IE8 is garbage & MS is telling me that it isn't.
  • dyfrin
  • Expert
  • Expert
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 503
  • Loc: WI

Post 3+ Months Ago

Speaking of missing browsers, where is opera on there, or konquerer.
  • spork
  • Brewmaster
  • Silver Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6252
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

dyfrin wrote:
Speaking of missing browsers, where is opera on there, or konquerer.

Yes, definitely Opera. What the hell?
  • UPSGuy
  • Lurker ಠ_ಠ
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2733
  • Loc: Nashville, TN

Post 3+ Months Ago

How about a FF developer's take on it? :) Love it.
  • graphixboy
  • Control + Z
  • Mastermind
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 1828
  • Loc: In the Great White North

Post 3+ Months Ago

I love the standard's compliant line... IE8 ACID3 Results I didn't know 20/100 was compliant :-)
  • UPSGuy
  • Lurker ಠ_ಠ
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2733
  • Loc: Nashville, TN

Post 3+ Months Ago

Has anyone looked at the 'myth busting' section? I missed it the first time around. Must have been the laughter. heh Equally entertaining.
  • joebert
  • Fart Bubbles
  • Genius
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 13503
  • Loc: Florida

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
I love how Safari doesn't even get a mention. Granted, I'm not a fan of Safari but it has been around quite a bit longer than Chrome.

Quote:
Speaking of missing browsers, where is opera on there, or konquerer.


Safari and Opera were in the original draft, but the developers couldn't get management to sign-off on descriptions like

Quote:
Holy ****! These two completely blow us away here


I guess they decided that if these two browsers were going to induce foul language from the developers the browsers had to go.
  • casablanca
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 481

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
Myth #4: Internet Explorer doesn't play well with Web standards.

The Real Deal: Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium's test cases than any other browser.

My personal favourite. :)

And IE more reliable than Firefox? Till date, Firefox has never crashed on me. Need I say anything about IE?
  • tastysite
  • Proficient
  • Proficient
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 349
  • Loc: Brighouse, West Yorkshire, England

Post 3+ Months Ago

I like the bit where they say that passing css2.1 makes them more up to day that say... o I don't know firefox or something after all we on css3 now . Mind I do know I have this thing about css3 compatibly so maybe its just me
  • bermuda
  • Graduate
  • Graduate
  • bermuda
  • Posts: 144

Post 3+ Months Ago

It really is not huge difference whether to use and choose IE or Mozilla or Opera because all are really great. The real point is that they simply are web browsing softwares and they need help to run smoothly and securely and the help comes from the part of anti-virus and anti-trojan softwares.

It is a mistake assuming that by having a browser which is regularly updated, nothing will go wrong and no security matters might come along.
  • UPSGuy
  • Lurker ಠ_ಠ
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2733
  • Loc: Nashville, TN

Post 3+ Months Ago

IMHO, it is also a mistake to assume that anti-virus and anti-trojan software will pick up where a browser leaves off in the security dept. I can also attest that smooth operation and security aren't the only factors that make a browser 'great'. Rendering, performance, stability, compliance, etc. all play a part. We'll just have to differ in opinion here. ;)

Have a look over here bermuda: http://www.ozzu.com/general-discussion/several-anti-virus-products-tested-with-shocking-results-t97772.html
  • Bogey
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • Bogey
  • Posts: 8411
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bigwebmaster wrote:
It is kind of amusing to read. The part about compatibility is what I find most amusing:

Quote:
Internet Explorer 8 is more compatible with more sites on the Internet than any other browser.


I still find broken websites in IE8 that force me to use their compatiblity link when these sites already work fine in FF. Why can't all websites just work normally?

Now if only websites would start complying to IE8...
  • Rabid Dog
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3245
  • Loc: South Africa

Post 3+ Months Ago

casablanca wrote:
Quote:
Myth #4: Internet Explorer doesn't play well with Web standards.

The Real Deal: Internet Explorer 8 passes more of the World Wide Web Consortium's test cases than any other browser.

My personal favourite. :)

And IE more reliable than Firefox? Till date, Firefox has never crashed on me. Need I say anything about IE?


I beg to differ. FF often crashes on me and IE8 doesn't.

As I have mentioned numerous times (sorry to those that have read this a hundred times) the biggest problem is the lack of standards. If we really want compliant rendering we need to stick to an XML/XSD type rendering mechanism. If it ain't right blow it up. The problem is that most web browsers cater for the n00b who is now a web professional. I mean try it. Try parsing an incorrectly formated XML document, or validating an XML document that doesn't comply with the specified XSD. The web internet (I say web because there is far more to the internet that websites) is full of badly built sites, hacked and broken markup and css. The only time we can complain about vendors not being standards compliant is when we ourselves become standards compliant.

It is kinda like slavery and prostitution, as long as there is demand there will be supply. So let us take responsibility for this one. Rap ourselves across the wrist and make a concerted effort to not build websites that pass FF compliance or IE compliance but pass the W3C compliance test.

The next biggest problem is the way we have turned a presentation layer into an application layer. I mean really, web 2 is great and all that but is it needed? We keep bloating things and then complaining when they don't work, never mind the fact that we break the entire document object model when we do this. Arb JS to perform Async operations, view state field to create stateful representation


IIf we want all this then we should rather stick to flash, or desktop applications. The web was designed as a presentation layer. Lets keep it to that :)
  • ATNO/TW
  • Super Moderator
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 23456
  • Loc: Woodbridge VA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Man it's good to have you back Rabid Dog. I've missed your excellent contributions.
  • Rabid Dog
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3245
  • Loc: South Africa

Post 3+ Months Ago

Bogey wrote:
Bigwebmaster wrote:
It is kind of amusing to read. The part about compatibility is what I find most amusing:

Quote:
Internet Explorer 8 is more compatible with more sites on the Internet than any other browser.


I still find broken websites in IE8 that force me to use their compatiblity link when these sites already work fine in FF. Why can't all websites just work normally?

Now if only websites would start complying to IE8...



Disagree again. The web was intially designed as fail safe data transfer mechanism. Data transfer being the keyword, not "check out my super cool menus and animations!". Anyone remember SGML? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_G ... p_Language

Quote:
HTML
Main article: HTML
The design of HTML was originally inspired by SGML tagging, but since no clear guidelines for expansion were offered, many HTML documents are not proper SGML. HTML was later reformulated (at version 2.0) to be an application of SGML, but only compliant documents can be considered proper SGML, and for a large number of HTML documents, validation was never pursued. The charter for the recently revived World Wide Web Consortium HTML Working Group goes as far as to say, "the Group will not assume that an SGML parser is used for 'classic HTML'".[3]

Although its syntax closely resembles that of SGML, HTML 5 has abandoned any attempt to be an SGML application, and has explicitly defined its own "html" serialization, although it does also define an alternative XML-based XHTML 5 serialization. [4]


There you have it folks "validation was never pursued". And there in lies the biggest flaw with with html and xhtml. Keep websites simple and they will work :) as I said previously, browsers should not render sites that do not comply to the specified DTD or XSD.


If xhmtl is a subset of XML it is not difficult to validate. I still maintain, if you cannot build it right, then don't build it.
  • Rabid Dog
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3245
  • Loc: South Africa

Post 3+ Months Ago

ATNO/TW wrote:
Man it's good to have you back Rabid Dog. I've missed your excellent contributions.


Thanks atno, hopefully my contributions will continue to be helpful :)
  • craniul 26
  • Novice
  • Novice
  • craniul 26
  • Posts: 27

Post 3+ Months Ago

Why does everyone have to knock IE everyone also suggests to me that I should use another however the only time I have had problems with IE is when there are other problems on the computer that causes files to be corrupt.
  • Rabid Dog
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3245
  • Loc: South Africa

Post 3+ Months Ago

craniul 26 wrote:
Why does everyone have to knock IE everyone also suggests to me that I should use another however the only time I have had problems with IE is when there are other problems on the computer that causes files to be corrupt.


Don't take it personally. I have always taken the stance that all web browsers suck :) I use IE 8 all the time and FF for render testing, so don't feel alone.
  • ATNO/TW
  • Super Moderator
  • Super Moderator
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 23456
  • Loc: Woodbridge VA

Post 3+ Months Ago

I actually like IE8. Since it was released I actually have it open at all times in addition to FF and flip back and forth for a variety of reasons. One being, I like the "InPrivate" browsing for secure sites and transactions. I've never used any prior version of IE as much as I have IE8
  • UPSGuy
  • Lurker ಠ_ಠ
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2733
  • Loc: Nashville, TN

Post 3+ Months Ago

It could be that I'm just set in my ways, but I just prefer Firefox. There are several add-ons that I just don't want to be without while I work or play.

That being said, we only support IE for our internal apps here at work, so I use IE7/8 extensively for testing. I hardly ever open it at home, though.
  • Rabid Dog
  • Web Master
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 3245
  • Loc: South Africa

Post 3+ Months Ago

UPSGuy wrote:
It could be that I'm just set in my ways, but I just prefer Firefox. There are several add-ons that I just don't want to be without while I work or play.

That being said, we only support IE for our internal apps here at work, so I use IE7/8 extensively for testing. I hardly ever open it at home, though.


And there in lies the reason for this silly little debate :) It is all about preference. You grow up on Unix you won't switch because you are comfortable and productive with it. Same for other OSs, same for IDE's

But I still recon that browsers should bomb on invalid sites by doing some sort of DTD or XSD validation and I am sticking to my guns!
  • UPSGuy
  • Lurker ಠ_ಠ
  • Web Master
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 2733
  • Loc: Nashville, TN

Post 3+ Months Ago

Quote:
One being, I like the "InPrivate" browsing for secure sites and transactions.


From Firefox 3.5 Release Notes:
Quote:
Improved tools for controlling your private data, including a Private Browsing Mode.


Not trying to imply that this is a reason to use one over another, just was reading over the notes and made me think of your post.
  • Bogey
  • Genius
  • Genius
  • Bogey
  • Posts: 8411
  • Loc: USA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Rabid Dog wrote:
As I have mentioned numerous times (sorry to those that have read this a hundred times) the biggest problem is the lack of standards. If we really want compliant rendering we need to stick to an XML/XSD type rendering mechanism. If it ain't right blow it up. The problem is that most web browsers cater for the n00b who is now a web professional. I mean try it. Try parsing an incorrectly formated XML document, or validating an XML document that doesn't comply with the specified XSD. The web internet (I say web because there is far more to the internet that websites) is full of badly built sites, hacked and broken markup and css. The only time we can complain about vendors not being standards compliant is when we ourselves become standards compliant.
While your argument is valid (by saying that web designers should code properly), Firefox was able to render more incorrectly coded sites then previous versions of IE. I may have misunderstood your argument there, but that is what I got from that huge paragraph :)
Rabid Dog wrote:
It is kinda like slavery and prostitution, as long as there is demand there will be supply. So let us take responsibility for this one. Rap ourselves across the wrist and make a concerted effort to not build websites that pass FF compliance or IE compliance but pass the W3C compliance test.
This one ties in with the above quoted paragraph, and while I have done that before and tested on previous versions of IE, they managed to mess something up numerous of times. Not all the time, not even most of the time, but some of the time. While there could be bad web designers (and there are), browsers shouldn't be only for themselves... what good is a browsers if it's not user friendly?
Rabid Dog wrote:
The next biggest problem is the way we have turned a presentation layer into an application layer. I mean really, web 2 is great and all that but is it needed? We keep bloating things and then complaining when they don't work, never mind the fact that we break the entire document object model when we do this. Arb JS to perform Async operations, view state field to create stateful representation
Before I say anything else, let me say what I think Web 2 is. I believe that Web 2 is where users interact with a site... like this forum. I would say that user interaction with the site is a good thing... without it, there wouldn't be ozzu.com, forums or anything else like that... just news site and how-tos posted by administrators and things that were mailed to administrator either by e-mail or by mail.
Rabid Dog wrote:
IIf we want all this then we should rather stick to flash, or desktop applications. The web was designed as a presentation layer. Lets keep it to that :)
Now it's my turn to disagree. JavaScript is easier to learn :lol:

Seriously though, while Flash is great and all (it is), it could get a little difficult to slow learners like me. I would prefer JavaScript over Flash. While that could be "bad designing practices" to you, it's really not that bad (unless I totally misunderstood your argument there :lol: ).
Rabid Dog wrote:
Bogey wrote:
Bigwebmaster wrote:
It is kind of amusing to read. The part about compatibility is what I find most amusing:

...a quote... I could only have 3 quotes embed within each other...

I still find broken websites in IE8 that force me to use their compatiblity link when these sites already work fine in FF. Why can't all websites just work normally?

Now if only websites would start complying to IE8...



Disagree again. The web was intially designed as fail safe data transfer mechanism. Data transfer being the keyword, not "check out my super cool menus and animations!". Anyone remember SGML? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_G ... p_Language

Is that what you think what I'm for? The 'web candy' or the 'eye catchers'? That's funny, because most people say my site is 'boring'.
Rabid Dog wrote:
Data transfer being the keyword, not "check out my super cool menus and animations!".
That is what I was aiming at. (Besides the joke that nobody got :( (Probably because it was poorly worded)).

I said that because I've used previous versions of IE and everytime, I would have to make a hack for IE to make my site look right, while my site looks relatively the same in all other browsers (By that I mean Opera, Firefox and Safari (I did forget to check some other browsers... no offense to other browsers and other browser-users).

My experience with other IE's made me biased against IE8 and believe it had compliance problems as well (like other earlier versions of IE's). I didn't even update my IE to IE* (It's still IE7), and that is because I don't use IE anymore... I'm now using Mozilla Firefox and sticking to it.
  • spork
  • Brewmaster
  • Silver Member
  • User avatar
  • Posts: 6252
  • Loc: Seattle, WA

Post 3+ Months Ago

Rabid Dog wrote:
But I still recon that browsers should bomb on invalid sites by doing some sort of DTD or XSD validation and I am sticking to my guns!


I can't possibly agree with you more on this. XHTML syntax errors that violate a DTD should punch developers in the face in the same manner with which a missing semicolon in C++ does.

Bogey wrote:
Rabid Dog wrote:
If we want all this then we should rather stick to flash, or desktop applications. The web was designed as a presentation layer. Lets keep it to that :)

Now it's my turn to disagree. JavaScript is easier to learn :lol:

Seriously though, while Flash is great and all (it is), it could get a little difficult to slow learners like me. I would prefer JavaScript over Flash. While that could be "bad designing practices" to you, it's really not that bad (unless I totally misunderstood your argument there :lol: ).


I think you did misunderstand his argument. Just because something is easier to learn doesn't make it the right tool for a particular application domain. Web developers are trying to push HTML/Javascript too far in order to jury-rig it into acting like a full-blown desktop application, when there are already plenty of other, much better tools suited for the task. Flex/Flash/AIR, etc. Bad design practices are bad regardless of who's doing the actual development.
  • Anonymous
  • Bot
  • No Avatar
  • Posts: ?
  • Loc: Ozzuland
  • Status: Online

Post 3+ Months Ago

Post Information

  • Total Posts in this topic: 42 posts
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests
  • You cannot post new topics in this forum
  • You cannot reply to topics in this forum
  • You cannot edit your posts in this forum
  • You cannot delete your posts in this forum
  • You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
 

© 1998-2014. Ozzu® is a registered trademark of Unmelted, LLC.